Quashed

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., v. M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC6 Jun 2018OSA/150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal challenging an order extending an interim measure. The appellant sought to remove an observation made by the Single Judge regarding the inadmissibility of invoking a Bank Guarantee without a court-adjudicated sum, fearing it would unduly influence the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of observing that the Arbitrator shall consider the Section 17 application uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order.

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Vs M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

and THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

O.S.A.No.150 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.8553 of 2018

¶7

M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited,Constructions P.B.No.979, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam,

¶8

Chennai – 600 089. .. Appellant/Applicant

¶9

vs.

¶10

M/s.Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr.A.Harish, No.3.37, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi, Trichirapalli-15. .. Respondent/Respondent

¶11

Appeal filed under Order Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 against the order dated 16.4.2018 passed in O.A.No.49 of 2018 on the file of this Court.

¶12

For Appellant .. Mr.Nithyaesh

¶13

For Respondent .. Mr.N.C.Ashok kumar

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The appellant has preferred the above appeal challenging the order dated 16^th April 2018 passed in O.A.No.49 of 2018, in and by which, the learned Single Judge of this Court has extended the interim order for a period of eight weeks directing the parties to approach the learned Arbitrator.

¶16

The appellant is only aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the interim order

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

dated 16^th April 2018, which reads as follows:

¶19

“9. It is contended by the applicant that the respondent had sent a mail along with revised shop drawing based on which the applicant manufactured the product with a channel width of ISMC-200. However the same, according to the applicant, is denied by the respondent alleging performance deficiency and had taken steps to invoke PBG dated 07.07.2017. As held in Gangotri Enterprises, when the claim is neither an admitted sum nor a sum which stood adjudicated by any Court of law, the respondent cannot invoke and encash the Bank Guarantee.”

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellant that such an observation would influence the learned Arbitrator while considering and passing orders in an application filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶21

Considering the limited scope, the Original Side Appeal is disposed of with an observation that the learned Arbitrator shall consider the application under Section 17 of the said Act uninfluenced by any of the observation made in the order impugned. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.8553 of 2018 is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar bbr To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. +2cc to Mr.Nithyaesh, Advocate sr.no.34944 +1cc to Mr.C.Jagadish, Advocate sr.no.35153 O.S.A.No.150 of 2018 nr 22/06/2018

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., v. M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., v. M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Polaris Consulting & Servi

M/S.Carborandum Universal Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Govi Kalvirayar, president Vs The Director of Panchayat

Mr. K. Rajendran Vs M/S. Tamil Nadu State

K.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Sethupathy Vs The District Collector